Open letter to Linus

It suffers the same transformation we see in entertainment intellectual properties like Star Wars.

Identify a respected institution.

kill it.

gut it.

wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect

When a stem activity, such as open source, goes social justice, then its job gets redefined as showing that women, blacks, and Muslims are capable of stem by giving them stem social roles – which is how NASA lost the capability to go into space.

If you, Linus, are replaced by social justice warriors, which always happens when you get a code of conduct, Linux slowly dies – bugs will not get fixed, misfeatures will get added, and it will suffer from bitrot as the world changes around it.

It will go the same path as Soviet and Rhodesian agriculture. Soviet agriculture never recovered from the liquidation of the kulaks, Rhodesian agriculture never recovered from the genocide of white farmers.

This code of conduct is the work of people who think that all the stuff descended from the sky, and white males, being the evil sexist racist homophobic mysogynist islamophobes that we are, snatched all the good stuff up, thereby preventing anyone else from having it.

They think that if it was not for the horrid oppression committed by white males, they could just help themselves to the stuff in Walmart, and Walmart shelves would magically refill, the way the shelves in Venezuela were supposed to magically refill.

This code of conduct was brought to you by the same thinking on display in Venezuela and in South Africa, where without white farmers the South African crops mysteriously don’t grow and without bakeries run by lighter skinned Venezuelans, darker skinned Venezuelans find themselves mysterious short of bread.

A code of conduct results in social justice warriors being helicoptered into the social role and social status of people who create value, but strangely and mysteriously, value ceases to be created.

I’m not a tech guy, and last year I successfully wiped Windows and installed Linux on my computer. They design it so that it can be done by non-experts. My advice to everyone is to download a copy of the Linux OS kernel now to CD. It’s free. In the future, you might be glad you have it available.

Linux is the beating heart of open source. Linux is the epicenter of computing freedom. Linux is the greatest software project in the history of software and the single greatest achievement of human engineering besides.

If you really feel that way then get involved! Go out, find like minded people, brainstorm ideas, come up with a way to fork a version of thhe kernel whose development has no filthy “code of conduct”. Complaining is good, if you cant do anything ekse, then you actualky shoild bitch and complaon about it. But if you can do more, go out and throw yourself into it!

Because it’s open source it can be forked. so it’s not completely hopeless. THat is what the Zclassic coin guys did. They did not like the founder fees of Zcoin so they forked it and got rid of the fees but kept the rest the same.

Everyone seems to have missed the extra twist here. Intel. Not only are they converged they, along with the other hardware makers, have had an ax to grind with Linus for years. They threw their weight behind this coup as much to specifically rid themselves of Linus as impose the CoC.

They hate open sourcing their device drivers and have wanted a “stable binary kernel device driver ABI” for over a decade. Almost everyone else in the top layers of the pecking order are in favor or neutral. Linus simply vetoed the idea every time it came up.

The did the CoC the second they got Linus out the door to ensure he can’t come back. If I’m right they will announce the stable kernel ABI as soon as the succession struggle is over. That is the immediate and pressing danger. If they do that it won’t matter if the kernel gets forked. Everything will be tied to those binary drivers and you can kiss *BSD goodbye. Any forks would have to maintain binary compatibility. Imagine being limited to shoehorning Windows drivers in, in a few years the divergence would be about as bad. Now imagine the drivers are crypto locked and the DMCA forbids peeking inside to see how they work and only “secure” kernels can even load them after the TPM grants the right key.

Linux would still be sitting in a git repo but it would be closed for all intents and purposes. It would truly be dead and they would be wearing its skin.

I’m amazed at how totally wrong you get the stable Linux kernel ABI issue. It’s an ongoing nightmare for users, because it subjects device drivers to continuous rot that the kernel maintainers don’t always catch. I’ve personally experienced it with USB 1.x devices that stopped working and then started working again as kernel versions changed, cost me quite a bit of money and hassle. Probably also explains the popularity of Linux as a VM, where very limited device driver support is required.

Looking at it from the outside, one can imagine that the #1 reason for Linus having this policy is that it prevents anyone from forking just the drivers and creating their own operating system on top, or using them unmodified for their own OS. The BSDs would be ecstatic at such a development, because after creating a shim architecture they could vastly increase the number and breath of devices they support. See the NDISwrapper project for how Linux took advantage of Windows binary drivers for a good long while.

Lemme guess, you use NVidia video cards and other skanky drivers downloaded from vendor websites. The no stable ABI policy was intended to make upstreaming device drivers the path of least resistance and binary drivers “not Linus’s problem.” If you stick to hardware with upstream drivers everything tends to “just work” because it gets maintained by the kernel developers instead of the vendor, who abandons maintenance the instant they stop selling the device.

And yes, we all remember NDISWrapper, it was a ghetto of second class support that usually only worked just good enough that people kept the hardware and complained a lot. And nobody cared, can’t look inside those drivers to troubleshoot so why bother? And the driver authors themselves never cared because they were only intended to work around the bugs in Windows, not work anywhere else.

Lemme guess, you use NVidia video cards and other skanky drivers downloaded from vendor websites.

Again, you’re completely out to lunch. For myself and my parents, I only use FOSS drivers, granted, none of us are gamers, and for the last 4 years or so Intel’s built in video has been entirely adequate for basic 2D usage including watching video.

If you stick to hardware with upstream drivers everything tends to “just work” because it gets maintained by the kernel developers instead of the vendor, who abandons maintenance the instant they stop selling the device.

You seem to have missed where I mentioned these wonderful kernel developers massively borked the USB 1.x subsystem at a very basic level for quite a while. And I know I’m not the only person/organization that suffers from the drumbeat of driver regressions.

The no stable ABI policy was intended to make upstreaming device drivers the path of least resistance and binary drivers “not Linus’s problem.”

And its now working horribly for ARM SoCs, which frequently get one binary blob for one kernel version. Moving to a fixed binary ABI ought to help that problem, if you’re not obsessed with the purity of FOSS and on a serious budget, as is much of the world. But what most I care about is open source drivers not continuing to be a crapshoot over time.

So you want to replace the “crapshoot” open drivers with closed ones. No thanks. Yes the ARM SoCs are wretched, that is the point. They refused to open their drivers so their closed blobs broke as soon as the kernel reved, locking them to one obsolete kernel. That pain is the only lever that has been driving those drivers to open up and mainline. At this point the video drivers are the only major[1] holdout. Everything else is, often kicking and screaming like spoiled children, being dragged into the mainline kernel.

And now that Linux has been condemned to die a slow horrible death, it doesn’t matter anymore. What does is keeping those drivers open as long as possible so the BSDs don’t die. They learn how hardware works by looking at the Linux drivers.

[1] I’m not so RMS Pure that WiFi blobs running in the WiFi controller bother me overly much. Fighting the FCC is a war for another day. Software Defined Radio becoming widespread will do that eventually.

Ty! I noticed in recent news stories the mention that Linus was finding it difficult to work with Intel on the recent Sprectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities apparently because Intel wanted non-disclosure. Thanks to your explanation, I somewhat understand the overarching issue.

We must become our own market. We must refuse to fund and buy closed source shit. The problem is we have so many white male defectors such as H, who don’t understand the critical importance.

Also unfortunately nearly all of you refuse to do your civic duty and actually study the impossibility of 9/11 not being controlled demolitions. This is a serious problem. How can a society function properly when the males are so derelict.

Corollary is Yara I don’t want to hear your racist BS about blacks when whites are so easily hoodwinked. What use is 1 SD higher average IQ, when in fact whites are so psychologically vulnerable as I have explained on the succeeding blog.

Here’s an idea, maybe they went after his children. General Flynn was never going to cave to the FBI and Mueller until they threaten to send his son to jail for 40 years. Leftists have often targeted the children of the people they want to break.

One stubborn man was standing in the way of an entire industry with hundreds of billions of dollars on the line. Of course they would go that far. See my post above for my theory of a motive big enough to explain it.

I can’t remember precisely, but it might have been you, Jim, who surmised that Linus had an entourage around him at all times at conferences just to have reliable witnesses to protect him against potential attacks from #MeToo parasites. If he was aware enough of the magnitude of the threat, and this still happened, who else could possibly withstand the onslaught?

Software has a certain purity that sets it apart from other technological endeavors, but it still requires competent human beings to maintain it and protect it from entropic degradation, like transportation or energy infrastructure. Software systems are formal symbol systems, but competent humans are the last link in the chain that ensures referential integrity between those formal symbol systems and effective (read: effectful) actions in the real world.

If we can’t rely on sufficient human competence being there to ensure that it works, it’s more important than ever for formal verification methods for software to break into the mainstream. I’m not very bullish on blockchain technology in general, but if enough people truly wish to grant arbitration power over ownership claims to non-sentient algorithms, that sector might provide the impetus for enough software engineers to get serious about insisting on proofs of correctness across the industry as a whole before it’s too late.

Actually our society is collapsing.
Everywhere you pay more and get less in return.
Industrial jobs aren’t coming back.
And what has still chances to work (intellectual work) is infested by mentally ill people (the busy, productive people being too busy seeing that and are too polite/policed to put themselves at risk by going against the herd).

Worst possible way of stepping down that I can imagine. Indeed, it still seems more like an odd joke. And the immediate insertion of a code of conduct tells us all we need to know about who will be running the show in the future.

Dead girl or live boy? It’s difficult to imagine Linus, “my life has been three decades of release candidates”, being so irresponsible as to not plan for an orderly succession and instead just walking away with a weak shrug of his shoulders and the equivalent of a press release about choosing to live his life as a gay man.

Enough money is riding on Linux that I hope sane people will eventually end up on top. But it’s looking pretty iffy at the moment.

Pretty sure that they are not literally mindless, but are paid employees following directives from a supervisor, and lack discretion – they are following procedures laid down in a handbook.

CR endlessly repeats himself like a video game NPC, but that is not because he is a video game NPC, it is because, like a video game NPC, he is following a script, and can only give us the canned responses covered by the script.

Much like the frustrating experience you get when you call up a “help” line, and the “help” is required to robotically follow a formula that is irrelevant to the problem that you are calling them about.

CR cannot give relevant or intelligent responses, because he has to give canned and pre programmed responses. Hence the repetition, similar to what one encounters with an unhelpful help line, where you get the same preprogrammed spiel over and over again any time you use a trigger phrase.

He is following a formula written for dealing with Muslim extremists, and lightly edited with a search and replace, replacing “Islam” with “reaction”.

He cannot make relevant or intelligent responses, because they would dock his pay if he departed from a formula that was written by people who don’t know or care much about what we believe, and incorrectly anticipated what we were going to say.

OK I guess I’m not departing after all then. Really thought this was the water-shed: a topic I’m not all that bothered by.
But ok, if I’m a paid shill repeating slightly modified mantras to target reaction, I guess I’d better chime in after all.

Open Source is the wisdom of crowds, the idea being that it’s better to let an unlimited number of developers bring their particular expertise to a problem, rather than use a top-down single-author-plus-assistants-who-obey-him model.

It’s the same basic idea as ‘the free market will solve all problems’ and it’s just as wrong-headed as ‘let the people elect a government’ or indeed ‘let the women have a say in how the family should be ruled’.

The thing is, in the specific narrow context of computer programming, it can actually work. The core concept of modern computing is that tiny robotic operations can combine into very sophisticated algorithms, and when they’re linked to highly complex output devices, the range of problems that can be simulated in sufficient detail to be just as useful as alternative approaches is very very high indeed. Example: computers can play music videos in more than enough detail for a normal human to be completely satisfied. In fact watching a live music performance on YouTube is just about as exciting as attending in person, though some purists would no doubt complain that this leaves out parts of the atmosphere and this is true: the beer, the other audience members, the smokey atmosphere, the excessive volume, those aren’t simulated when you’re watching your computer at home, but that’s not the computer’s fault.

Is it a good idea to have access, in principle, to how your computer’s operating system works? Sure, why not, and in the current year in globohomo gayplex it’s an even better idea that it would ordinarily be, because we already know for sure that the big tech companies are up to no good and basically want us dead. (Reactionaries in the Jimian tradition will experience mild cognitive dissonance that these firms aren’t pursuing the profit motive and bringing Adam Smith’s invisible hand to bear on the world, and haven’t been doing so for a rather long time, but they’ll usually settled on the libertarian cope of ‘the state interferes and compels them to do evil things they wouldn’t otherwise have done’ or the slightly more sophisticated variant ‘the state makes it impossible for the better companies to do business, giving the evil ones extra support’, or some other convoluted cope I’ve not yet encountered. I’m sure there are many more.)

Is Open Source really better than top-down programming? I can’t think of any examples where the Open Source approach is better but I’m sure others can. The nearest, by my reckoning, would probably be “Audacity”, which is pretty effective when working with sound. It’s probably as good as “Cool Edit” was at its peak, just about, and most of the modern features of “Audition” are unnecessary. I can’t speak for “Pro Tools” because I loathe Apple machines.

The thing is, even with Open Source, if they’re falling back on high level functions that’ve settled into permanent optimised states, these will generally have been created from the top down. This is certainly true of the core libraries for classic C, which might just as well be part of the language. (Indeed some would say Ansi C without MediaLib or similar isn’t a usable language.)

Does the concept of group creation of a single software entity (I won’t say ‘application’ because people here tend to nit-pick at quite a low level) even cohere? I’m not at all sure that it does, but if we understand ‘open source’ to just mean ‘multiple top-down designers creating modules which mesh together into a unified thing’ then it’s really not meaningfully different from the ‘object’ orientation, and that’s fine, it’s a way of looking at tasks that assumes some degree of sane reductionism.

That’s not normally what people mean though. They normally mean there’s some magic philosophical boon to be had from enjoying the vibrant diversity of a *community* of designers instead of the boring old-fashioned idea of someone ‘doing programming’.

I’m generally against that if I’m honest. Can’t wait to hear how preferring Beethoven’s creative approach to that of The Rolling Stones is left-wing egalitarian social justice infiltration.

Linux had an owner, Gnome didn’t and it was ruined. What does that tell you about your Cathedral and Bazaar digest? Open source works the same way everything else does: people pick good solutions given the choice, clear ownership leads to responsibility, in the software world, responsibility means stable APIs. Restaurants work the same way, go to a mall food court, this one has McDonalds and Taco Bell, that one has Panda Express and Burger King.

It looks like you’re angry that we know you’re a ghoul. Unfortunately, you’re unable to say anything relevant because you evidently died ten to twenty years ago.

If you were a level 3 ghoul you could have said Android and Docker show the failure of open source. But level 3 ghouls are the undead remains of creative people and in life you were a small-scale leader type of above average intelligence and charisma.

I lost interest in computers when it became apparent the dream had begun to turn into a nightmare around 2005.

I used to mess around with DJGPP and all that garbage like the rest of you.

The reality in the real day-to-day world is that paperwork’s ballooned since computers *made it easier* for paperwork to balloon.

The reality in the real day-to-day world is that the efficiency savings of getting every secretary to use MS-Access resulted in a million parasites getting paid to install and unfuck computers, but precisely zero secretaries giving up their hang files and clipboards.

The reality in the real day-to-day world is that we’re more under the thumb of Zog than ever before, and had the whole thing never happened, we’d be fitter, less stressed and less beholden to evil people.

That’s why I never bothered with hand-held tracking devices with toys attached.

Open source works the same way everything else does: people pick good solutions given the choice, clear ownership leads to responsibility

And that the actions of that responsibility are transparent because the code is open. This reduces costs due to uncertainties. For example, anyone can compete to provide an emergency fix to a problem. Typically the most trusted owners will be relied upon, yet at least the market has options in any case. Also forking enables competition, which reduces the risk of anti-competitive bit rot.

“Open Source is the wisdom of crowds, the idea being that it’s better to let an unlimited number of developers bring their particular expertise to a problem, rather than use a top-down single-author-plus-assistants-who-obey-him model.”

Nothing like this. Open source is just white people doing things for a hobby with other like-minded white people.

It’s an emergent “nation” run by something that superficially looks like democracy but in practice isn’t.

When infiltrators take control of the ostensibly governing entities of a successful open source project, it either dies, or they discover that the governing entities don’t govern at all. They issue a proclamation and, to their amazement, nothing happens.

Of course the idea of writing an operating system just because you feel like it is inexplicable to many, which is why they need to come up with elaborate explanations of the “open source phenomenon”, whereas it’s closed source that needs explaining.

Keeping source code secret indicates that some particular person has something to lose by having others muck around with it.

This is normal and healthy.

Open source means you’re inviting randoms to take a share of your responsibility. It’s equivalent to the King saying “I’ll let Parliament look after X from now on”.

Open vs closed source is a litmus test for a person’s mindset. The supporter of open source is generally an American Revolutionary who believes no-one has the God-given right to monopolise any particular responsibility/power and that if you open things up to as many people as possible, the results will increase without significant diminishing returns.

> Open source means you’re inviting randoms to take a share of your responsibility.

Open source always uses Git, and Git was designed by Linus to make sure that for any release version you know who is responsible for what.

There is a wonderful Git feature called “blame”, which does exactly what you would think, provided you don’t let anyone rebase the master, and that anything merged into the master has been rebased to the master to provide the illusion of single strictly sequential thread of development.

Linus addressed the problem of which you speak, and his solution is the best practice to this day.

Reactionaries want the one true King solution. You are not arguing for the one true King solution, for Linus was the one true King of Linux. You are arguing against the one true King solution in favor of the one true bureaucratic committee solution.

It’s still a many authors model as opposed to a single author model.
There’s no reason why one *person* should be responsible for doing all the work, but there’s a world of difference between a military hierarchy and a commonwealth of equals.

In my defense, back when using SVN, I never encountered blame, probably because projects too small. Practice was, you were not supposed to break the build.

In practice breaking the build happened and finger pointing ensued, without anything like blame ever being deployed to resolve the ensuing dispute. Usually obvious who broke the build, but he always had some justification.

> If true believer progs aren’t literal NPCs then being a true believing prog turns you into someone indistinguishable from an NPC.

Because crimestop makes you stupid – if you are allowed to think, might think crimethought.

Hence the similarity to an unhelpful help phone system where the humans are required to stick to their script, resulting in endless repetition of the same unhelpful spiel, much as CR endlessly and robotically repeats his preprogrammed spiel.

“Because crimestop makes you stupid – if you are allowed to think, might think crimethought.”

So true, so true!

Imagine the inner monologue of a free market guy…… ok so if we open up good/service-X to the free market, the price will be driven down by competition and everyone will be better off for it……. and the labour market needs to be completely free of state interference………. [crimestop]

This argument for an unregulated labor market is completely correct for short term labor market interactions, as for example day laborers hanging out in the Home Depot parking lot, and for longer term interactions between ethical actors with a long time horizon, as for example software engineers.

Some degree of state intervention is required to deal with longer term interactions between unethical actors (as for example the Singaporean Central Provident Fund), and to deal with unemployables, by enforcing behavior that makes them employable. The latter is going to resemble serfdom and slavery, or at least some aspects of serfdom and slavery, which is the opposite of your proposed intervention, your proposed intervention being to make priests (the professoriat) supreme over entrepreneurs, for the supposed benefit of those with short time horizons. The Dubai solution for unemployables is exile.

Nah. We need to make entrepreneurs supreme over unemployables, so that the otherwise unemployable don’t get hungry and start hunting other people’s cattle and gathering other people’s crops. We need to do what Dubai is frequently accused of doing. This will result in priests being disempowered, while you want priests to be empowered.

Yes, we need some intervention in the labor market – but we need the interventions of Singapore and Dubai, which are fundamentally and radically the opposite of your proposed interventions, are interventions in favor of people with long term horizons, and against people with short term horizons.

The only quibble I might have is the legitimacy of short-term labour contracts, as these are pernicious and deleterious to the time horizon of workers.

The above scenario though is INFINITELY preferable to Lolbergistan with everyone on zero hours contracts with no benefits, moving between countries as the out-sourcing/in-sourcing of global free trade grows ever more extreme.

Your proposed regulation demonizes entrepreneurs and valorizes the professoriat in the name of serving the proletariat. Singaporean and Dubai regulation valorizes entrepreneurs.

Dubai regulation of low status workers who cannot be trusted to make long term decisions is generally against them, to make them useful despite their short term inclination, rather than supposedly for their benefit, hence the accusations of slavery and serfdom, and the Singaporean Central Provident Fund is the opposite of what you intend and describe, since for people who are adequately thrifty, it is largely irrelevant.

Your proposed regulation is largely intended to make the professoriat supreme over people like software engineers in the name of doing good to the proletariat. Dubai regulation is for entrepeneurs, and Singaporean regulation is to inculcate middle class behavior on those inclined to fall short of it.

Negative, these things are only opposite the straw man you and others have consistently erected.

It is in no way meaningfully different from what I’ve actually written, often repeatedly in order to correct what I at first took to be a misunderstanding but was in fact deliberate, and such repetitions themselves came to be used of course as evidence of foul play.

All very predictable really.

Either way, I entirely favour regulation of low status workers who cannot be trusted to make lon term decisions and I expect it *will* be generally against them lol why would a regulation just be a vote of approval?

Not going to answer anything for a while, as I’m reading “Lobard Street”, which Moldbug linked in the article Cominator linked but people generally fail to read Moldbug’s sources so I’m doing it.
As I expected, the source of the problems in the banking system, by the account of Walter Bagehot in 1878, is the anarchy created by a lack of singular authority in the commercial banks.

“Lombard Street” is also available online in PDF format.
Moldbug’s prescription is very much derived from Bagehot’s: basically strengthen the authority of the central bank, print-print-print to solve the debt problem, nationalise the banks and aim to reduce the vulnerability of the commercial banks until they’re not so dependent on the central bank.

What do you do when your own daughter endorses a psycho bitch (Kane) who tried to get you fired? The man must be in a life crisis, I think.

Also. Jim, if I get you right, you are saying the Soviet or Venezuelan socialists promised “Don’t worry guys, we have smart, educated, experienced people, we can run this thing well.” and failed to deliver. In that case this thing seems worse. If you read the CoC, and its authors other stuff, https://postmeritocracy.org/ and https://postmeritocracy.org/meritocracy/ it becomes clear that it is not about promising that nonwhite trans women can do a good job. The CoC declares no-harassment over education or experience, one linked article talks about a cult of smartness etc. even education, which has always been a holy cow for libs, gets degraded here.

So I can only interpret it as a direct attack on quality work and the traits that make that possible. You can’t even call someone out for noob mistakes, or being too dumb to understand a problem.

So I think this is qualitatively different from previous socialists promising they can run a system well. It is a direct attack on the idea that something can be done well or badly at all. Former liberals argued education makes everybody able to do a good job, this time education or even age is being made irrelevant. This is something inherently worse IMHO. I cannot read it anything else than more or less openly wanting to destroy the whole thing instead of it being an unintended side-effect.

Excellent point…We are now being told in some places that Mathematics is white and racist, and should be made easier for the POC….Feminized communism is far stupider than Lenin’s version, which itself was not smart enough to even survive.

Parenting fail, but it does not follow the NEET path is better. It is very hard for a man to have any respect for himself if he does not have a woman and later on, eventually, does not reproduce. Better try, and if you fail, you fail. Disown the failed child and move on. After all he has two other daughters of whom there are no news, and that is likely to be good news. Literally, best thing is maybe the shotgun approach, have 6-7 kids, there will be at least one you can be proud of and just forget the rest once they have moved out.

>Literally, best thing is maybe the shotgun approach, have 6-7 kids, there will be at least one you can be proud of and just forget the rest once they have moved out.

Bingo! I’ve been of that same opinion for a number of years now. In today’s world,maximizing reproduction is the only insurance a man has against crappy children, just like in the old days it was an insurance against dying children. Today’s children, growing up to be castaways / ghouls is very similar, possibly even more tragic. And it’s more tragic, because whereas in the old days, a young child might have died in infancy or very early, so you might be spared of the tragedy of painful and incessant nostalgia, today’s castaways will drink your juices and then damn you once they feel the benefit over cost ratios tilting against you.

So, I say as well, the only hope is to make more, many more children, in the hopes of having at least one or two worthy of carrying your family’s name.

TIL that the poz got his daughter, Patricia Torvalds, who apparently runs the “Portland branch of Guerrilla Feminism” and co-signed some “Anti-Meritocracy manifesto”.

I don’t know if Torvalds is politically conscious, but even sub-consciously, diligently maintaining infrastructure that’s more valuable to the child snatching Goolags of the world than it ever will be to yourself must get old after a while. I won’t be surprised if his temporary break stretches all the way to retirement.

Why do you think he has any say in the matter either way? This was a coup. If he had some sort of crisis, would friends REALLY make forcing him to issue a “confession” and ramming through a CoC the second he left the door to make sure the Linus that made Linux Great could not possibly return? With “friends” like that you truly do not need enemies.

Whether or not your theory is correct, I certainly believe the relatively recent embrace of open source projects by Big Software was going to change things in innumerable ways.

Microsoft is a pretty significant example. They did a complete 180 in this regard.

A large corporation can’t enforce wokeness in an open source project through their HR department, but once they get involved they can start stacking the deck with SJW’s and put forth a CoC that is just as bad.

Unfortunately it may fall on deaf ears because you spoke the truth about egalitarianism. It’s analogous to when I use the term “9/11”, it causes ears to turn deaf because “that just can’t possibly be true.”

Denial of facts and self-deception is the norm, not the exception. Humans are fallen creatures, Peppermint’s ghouls. And all of us are suffering from some degree of self-deception. So whose reality is the real one? By which metric do we measure? Where do we record our (his)stories?

> It’s analogous to when I use the term “9/11”, it causes ears to turn deaf because “that just can’t possibly be true.”

No, you cause people to go deaf because you post like a crazy person. Dozens of replies, bringing up the topic when it’s not at hand (like now), dropping refuted claims and popping out a dozen more then going back to the abandoned claims later, etc.

If males defect on their civic duty w.r.t. being attacked by their own leaders, then said males are hopelessly doomed to be enslaved. I don’t want to commune with such males. So this is a test. And you’re failing the test thus far.

The moon landing was not an american achievement. It was the remnants of the old Confederacy riding rockets engineered by the remnants of Nazi Germany, which was later culturally appropriated as american success. (See this). But america is a communist country, and communists are too stupid to build rockets. Now we appropriate the technological achievements of a White South African to give us reusable rockets. He is a remnant of apartheid. When he is done there will be no more remnants.

>Well, some communists built terrific rockets. But Korolev was the son of a Cossack and stepson of a pre-WWI German engineer, and he, too, had Nazi rockets to culturally appropriate.

It’s not necessarily the engineers that are too stupid, but rather the people in charge are too stupid. By the 70s the Russian’s had built a better cargo launch rocket than anything we had but they didn’t use it for anything because the higher-ups didn’t understand why it was better than existing designs. Instead, they just built a lot of them and put them into storage. The US bought them for years after the cold war ended.

Same thing with the Russian moon rocket design. It was way too complicated with far too many rocket engines to work but the people in charge insisted on the design when it became clear that Russia couldn’t manufacture rocket engines to the tolerances need to match a Saturn V.

Maybe the kernel is OK, at least for a *NIX, but *NIX has always recursively sucked. I got Slackware to run with X on an 386-40 with 8MB back around 1998, (had to run the man pages through troff to view back then), tried new distros on more capable equipment every couple of years, but fundamentally it’s garbage from top to bottom. Bad interface, bad documentation, bad algorithms (e.g. grep vs. BeOS/ OSX search), horrendous directory structure, configuration, code, cruft unlimited … it just sucks. And every amateurish, half-baked “open sores” application that runs on it sucks too. GNU or not. UNIX set back computing by at least 40 years. If it all gets junked as it must something better will replace it.

Linux is an environment to run Git and to run the gcc compiler, to run Gnu.

A big flaw with gcc is that it is not debugger friendly. Similarly, rust.

We need a compiler that is ide friendly and debugger friendly, and then you write a minimal operating system that supports that compiler. Ide friendly means that the symbol table information for the current file and the current project is available to the editor and the debugger, and relationship between the symbol table, the current file, and the object code is available to the debugger – Clang is open source and supports this, Gnu does not.

Linux was written to support Gnu. If a new open source operating system, write it to support Clang. Also write it on the principle that everything is a url, rather than everything is a stream, and the protocol is negotiated when the url is accessed, rather than defined by the url prefix. But the compiler, the linker, and the ide expect that the negotiation will always return a memory mapped image of the file.

We really need an open source Clang based compiler plus ide plus debugger, which assumes that everything it needs gets magically mapped to and from memory, and then write an OS that magically maps stuff between memory and urls.

The *nix family is written around the principle that memory is really small, so you are reading everything off a tape drive or writing it to a tape drive, and communicating with the computer from a distant teletype whose keys are so stiff you need a hammer to activate them.

In *nix, you always wind up in terminal window, because everything is a stream, because everything is written around a world of tape drives, teletypes, and tiny memory. Should be interacting with a tree, a tree that contains symbols that reference other parts of the tree, so that it is actually a directed graph that is mappable to and from a tree, and is a directed acyclic graph in the sense that where a symbol references the containing branch of the tree, where it is a cyclic directed graph, the symbol references not the current state of the tree, but the state of the tree the last time you did a successful build – acyclic in that the symbol references the frozen past state of the tree, not the current state.

With GSL, C++ is moving toward’s Rust’s optional mandatory memory safety, thread safety, and resource safety. Need an operating system built under code that mostly has compiler enforced memory safety, thread safety, and resource safety – written C++ in a GSL dialect, rather than C.

But as yet, GSL is not really ready for prime time. Before we write a new open source operating system, GSL has to get us to the point where we can enforce a memory safe, resource safe, and thread safe C++ dialect. Or Rust has to provide satisfactory support for a debugger and ide. Which it will not when written around *nix.

The new operating system will need to support *nix the way Windows 10 does, as containers within the operating system, within which the items contained have stream access to those files, those ports, and those windows that the container gives them access to. Rust supports memory mapped files, *nix supports memory mapped files. We need an ide, a compiler, and a debugger wherein memory mapped files, rather than streamed files, are central.

Nit, UNIX™ was always disk oriented, by the time it was taking form disk had become cheap enough, its tape utilities were and still are rudimentary, although you can of course do anything you want by opening a tape special device.

One important example from it’s history underlines this, the first major money it got from AT&T was for text processing, including high quality all the way to driving professional phototypesetters with troff. Tape batch processing makes no sense in that context.

What’s GSL, BTW? Me, I want a Lisp Machine, with lots of the features you also want, I’ve sworn off using C++ for the rest of my life.

Thanks for that, Jim, though I’ll have to read up on Clang, Rust and GSL to understand in detail.

What I would like is a machine where I can understand what it is doing, run everything as if in a debugger, step into any function call including the OS and all libraries, see the flow of execution at a glance as well as what it did to the state and what it passed /sent over the network. Something like the legendary (LISP?) machines in the “UNIX Haters Handbook”, preferably with a nice brass and ivory crank on the side for stepping through execution. Can’t do this with pre-compiled languages, which is fine, but the bigger problem is you can’t do it with SW written by a bunch of people out of little patches and no one understanding the whole system, let alone documenting it.

My favorite language is Frink because it is written, maintained and well-documented by one genius with taste who doesn’t let anybody else screw it up. The main features are listed in the first two screens there, and the rest in the ToC a few more down, but briefly: it’s interpreted, runs on the JVM and is maybe the only physically-typed language. It lets me do more real work in one minute than in half an hour with even the best other languages and I seldom have to look at the documentation, but if I do, it’s all on that web page and crystal-clear.

“Should be interacting with a tree, a tree that contains symbols that reference other parts of the tree, so that it is actually a directed graph that is mappable to and from a tree, and is a directed acyclic graph in the sense that where a symbol references the containing branch of the tree, where it is a cyclic directed graph, the symbol references not the current state of the tree, but the state of the tree the last time you did a successful build – acyclic in that the symbol references the frozen past state of the tree, not the current state.”

This is very interesting, reminds me a little of Moldbug’s crazy Urbit project, but without the crazy part. That in turn reminds me of the Houyhnhnm Computing essays, which have a much preferable to Urbit philosophy of what an OS would be, if only programmers were as smart as Swift’s Houyhnhnms. (esp. ch. 2 on automated persistence).

Frink’s arbitrary-dimension, automatically-resized, non-rectangular, heterogeneous arrays are useful for such tree and other graph structures as you propose, I’ve used them for a number theory app. Your making unchangeable DAGs the fundamental data type also reminds me of Clojure and similar no-side-effects languages (never did get the hang of, though). Before I read your comment, I would have said the stream principle was just about the only good thing about *NIX, but looking at all the contortions needed to keep everything a stream, you’re clearly right.

The main remaining problem with C++ is the lack of proper object lifetime tracking. You can return references to stack local variables which then go out of scope. This is what Rust solved, and what GSL aims to solve. It’s tricky – you could have a member function that returns a class that contains a reference to some memory owned by the object (such as vector::begin() returning an iterator to the first element.)

Ok, you’ve persuaded me that I’d rather not know. I took a C++ class back in the mid-’90s using the Borland compiler on Win 3.1. Despite the bad tools it seemed to me that the problems with OOP were fundamental and unfixable and working with anything even vaguely like C++ would require devoting a lobe of my brain to something that was not only not worth understanding, but which would metastasize and eat my mind. Since then the quality of software and programmers has proved me more right than I could have imagined then.

Many times I’ve patched free software to solve some specific problem of mine, but didn’t have the connections or social skills to get those changes accepted into the main codebase. So I post the patch and a description of it on my website and call it a day. Whoever needs my patch will find it.

Think of the employment opportunities this creates. Women and minorities will flail about building stuff that doesn’t work, while white men download specific old versions of free software, apply 146 patches written by other white men, and voila, it works beautifully. Like that SNL skit where a fat white male nerd boasts that he’s getting paid $10,000 a day to fix the Obamacare website.

All non-trivial abstractions are leaky (h/t Joel Spolsky), and codes of conduct make them leakier, putting a premium on white and Asian nerds who understand what lies beneath. It’s as if the SJWs passed a law that all software must henceforth be written in assembly language!

“Many times I’ve patched free software to solve some specific problem of mine, but didn’t have the connections or social skills to get those changes accepted into the main codebase. So I post the patch and a description of it on my website and call it a day. Whoever needs my patch will find it.”

This says everything that needs to be said about Open Source. It’s Peer Review 2.0, Democracy 3.11 for networks and Progressivism XP.

This says everything that needs to be said about Open Source. It’s Peer Review 2.0, Democracy 3.11 for networks and Progressivism XP.

Hacker humor can include (posing as a SJW and) submitting patches with highly obfuscated Heisenbugs to accelerate their open source democrises.

Contribute to making Android entirely unusable. Hopefully Microshit will go full retard open source also so the same tactics can be deployed against Windoze. This will also be a proactive way to gain leverage against the Asians who via open source copying are leeching on white European male productivity.

I simplified it down to the level I can try to explain it to fence-sitters on Twitter. People are competitive. Evaluate people for productivity, get a lot of productivity. Evaluate people for anything else, from wearing elegant suits to being nice to minority groups and productivity necessary suffers as people put their competitive energies into the new target.

====
| Linus is never alone at any conference.
| This is not because he lets fame go to his
| head and likes having a posse around.
| They have made multiple runs at him.

“They have made multiple runs at him.” Just let the implications of that sink in for a bit. If my source is to be believed (and I have found him both well-informed and completely trustworthy in the past) this was not a series of misunderstandings, it was a deliberately planned and persistent campaign to frame Linus and feed him to an outrage mob.
====

And yeah, this is either the fork, or the end. And just when I’d finally landed on a linux distro I can live with for everyday….

I expect Jim isn’t going to like what I have to say there, although he will note I totally agree with him about females in engineering and Islam. We don’t need to fix Christianity. Don’t be deceived by the Beast. Instead we need to disintermediate the insolubly corrupt nation-state and State religion paradigm and replace it with truly sovereign invention. I’m approaching this from a technological paradigm shift perspective.

Christians must expect to be persecuted. Because we seek truth. This is the cross we bear. But Jesus bore that cross for us, so that we don’t always have to. Be strong. There’s not heaven on earth. Remember the Lord’s admonishment in 1 Samuel 8 against the State. We are not of this world. Remember that!

> I suspect Linus isn’t as ideological as we are about “bitched in tech” and it came back to bite him in the ass

“Therapy” usually means “My lawyer negotiated jail time down to therapy”.

Pretty sure he was facing spurious rape, domestic violence, blah blah blah charges. They have been trying to fake up a rape/sexual assault charge against him for some time. They probably found one of his exes and offered her a million dollars for her “book”.

“Therapy” usually means “My lawyer negotiated jail time down to therapy”.

I considered that possibility.

What I meant is that if I was in his shoes a long time ago I would have forked off and focused on creating a very secure, stable OS for the red pill community. I would have led by letting the SJWs eat their clusterfuck whole.

This has been my persistent criticism of you Jim. We win in the small with jurisdictional arbitrage. We don’t win by trying to fix the entire Western civilization as it is collapsing. Saplings grow exponentially to oak trees, but oak trees don’t grow to the moon. Our energies would be most efficiently employed on small things.

What’s the track record of other software projects that have gone down this road? Is Django totally unusable? They got overrun years ago.

Linux probably has quite a lot of runway. There will be a few technical canaries, mainly of things being added that Linus had long been a stalwart against, but ultimately it’ll take a lot to totally ruin it.

One of my VMs is running a kernel from 2009. It’s missing some minor features, but gets security fixes backported and otherwise works just fine. For commodity hardware. High-performance stuff on cutting-edge hardware is likely a very different story.

The significance of the death of the Linux software project is symbolic: there is no sufficiently large and centralized endeavour safe from the career subversives. Therefore, double down, this time without open flanks.

Since the incident cuts the psychological binds to the kernel, presumably it also opens the potential for innovation in the minds of the creative. *nix is great, but it’s 50 years old. Surely we can do better.

Where to start? For the core, Rust over GSL — any amount of C++ is deadly poison — and a Lisp in userland, preferably without garbage collection.

In the long run we may come to regard this as an incredibly fortuitous event in the history of computing.

Arrgh, what is this GSL you all are talking about? After some searching I thought it might be Microsoft’s Guideline Support Library for C++, but as you say, “any amount of C++ is deadly poison”.

What’s your alternative to GC for a Lisp in userland? Is having an interpretive environment with a REPL a goal? Or are you thinking about something like PreScheme, except compiling down to machine language instead of C?

Until a few more years pass I don’t trust Rust to survive given how important pozzed Mozilla is in sponsoring it, plus it’s a tad dangerous to engage with its community unless you’re anonymous, and good at staying that way, or antifragile.

C++ needs to be able to enforce memory safety, which GSL falls far short of.

Rust needs a decent IDE that knows the code symbol table and has a decent debugger. Supporting a good debugger is closely related to supporting an IDE – they both involve tight coupling to the symbol table and the parse tree. And then we write an operating system around that ide, compiler, and debugger, as *nix is whatever runs GNU.

Your article was sufficiently interesting to pull me in to read the comment thread, though I do not know Torvalds and cannot assess the situation you describe. However, to me, your last comment is even more interesting.

If it is not too obnoxious to descend briefly to a technical level to which many readers will not follow, may I ask:

1. Are you (or any of your readers) aware of any potential blocker that might impede the development of a decent IDE that knows Rust’s code symbol table?

2. Does compiling Rust not merely produce a normal ELF object with all the normal hooks? Or does Rust (as against C++) want some additional object-code-level semantics?

3. As far as an IDE goes, I had supposed that the chief problem would be the IDE’s lack of convenient access to a compiler-generated, semantically complete, XML- or JSON-formatted parse tree. In other words, I had not known that access to the code symbol table remained a difficult unsolved problem. Have I misunderstood?

I do not know Rust any more than I know Torvalds, admittedly, but would be interested to read more about the former.

Regarding the latter, though I do not know Torvalds, I have long known several members of one major standard open-source project. Those are some pretty good guys and they aren’t actually very ideological, but like me they tend to be fairly clueless about women and society. Eighty percent of them literally don’t see the problem with women in open-source projects, so they just accept the SJW position, apparently without thinking about it.

During the 00s, I had occasion to meet hundreds of those guys in person and, though more than a few of them are pretty eccentric, I never recall meeting a one who presented as anything other than straight heterosexual. I don’t even remember seeing a tattoo. I speak of the male volunteer hackers who actually make the open-source software we all use. Some of those guys marry decently well, too, and fewer are Jewish than you would have guessed, but eighty percent of them nevertheless unquestioningly accept the SJW view of the world because … well, I don’t know why. They aren’t political thinkers, I guess.

The few who are political thinkers seem to tend to lean hard right, regardless of the country from which they hail, but they’re only a few.

I suppose that my point is that there was never much resistance there to convergence.

If you wish to know, my experience does not contradict your impression of open-source-project women. I never understood why the men of open source could not see that many or most, perhaps all, of the few women present were present for different reasons than the men were. It was just obvious. For example, do you remember that I said that none of the men was tattooed? That was the men.

Even under cloak of anonymity, I am unwilling to cross the open-source women by relating specific details, so you are free to dismiss my account as lacking details, of course. Anyway, if you care to write more about Rust and the IDE, I would be interested to read.

But last time I checked, not happy with the debugger. And debugging under linux in C and C++ has been crappy since forever and has not been fixed. Whether this is because of the small-memory-everything-is-a-stream model, or just no one got around to doing it right, I don’t know.

Just stream out the symbol table and the parse tree onto disk, keep the symbol table and parse tree of the most recent successful compile, and then read the whole thing into memory every time you debug or edit, including the instantiation of all templates. Need to generate and record data linking the parse tree and the generated object code.

> During the 00s, I had occasion to meet hundreds of those guys in person and, though more than a few of them are pretty eccentric, I never recall meeting a one who presented as anything other than straight heterosexual. I don’t even remember seeing a tattoo. I speak of the male volunteer hackers who actually make the open-source software we all use. Some of those guys marry decently well, too, and fewer are Jewish than you would have guessed, but eighty percent of them nevertheless unquestioningly accept the SJW view of the world because … well, I don’t know why. They aren’t political thinkers, I guess

They are terrified and lying, because terrorized. Get them drunk at Las Vegas, you will be surprised.

> I never understood why the men of open source could not see that many or most, perhaps all, of the few women present were present for different reasons than the men were.

They can see it, just cannot say it. Linus was very much aware that social justice warriors were preparing rape and sexual assault charges against him.

As for Bitcoin and 9/11, I have explained the truth. Every man must decide for himself whether I have or have not. I am not going to repeat myself. Those who find the truth will win, and the rest will decline and/or perish.

On the human side, one might wonder about the financials. Dave’s comments provide the answer: high-performance and/or exotic use-case consulting. Distribute under a software license so that it is illegal to hire programmers to alter the code for commercial purposes. The business model is then essentially the provision of customization [programmer-advisors] to the discerning corporate client for the lifetime of the operation. Improvements suitable for merging, are merged.

Make it good enough and you’ll have your people in every technical department of note in the world.

It’s high art that requires the attention of the State, not vulgar art (as long as the latter doesn’t get too blatantly obscene). It’s one thing for a rock guitar god to hit some dissonant notes on purpose during a solo in order to excite the crowd; but quite another for an academic composer to try to throw out the rules of harmony altogether on the basis of some sort of so-called avant-garde theory which is just the false Revolutionary doctrine applied to music.

Could you elaborate on how cinema is inherently illicit? Story telling is a tradition as old as time, plays have been around for thousands of years and movies are pretty much just pre-recorded plays with special effects. Watching old movies is entertaining and a decent way to learn game.

I suppose it’s bad to give a lot of money and status to undesirables, whores and jewish pedos, but I don’t see why we can’t just employ the Roman solution of making actors low status.

@Nikolai All film one way or another uses an elaborate set of tricks designed to get the viewers to think that what they’re watching is real when it isn’t (ever see a film where you could see the cameras and the outside of the set?), and in this respect is different from traditional story-telling and theatre.

As Jim points out old movies (movies before 1965) tend to invariably be “sexist”.

The reason why I think music needs SOME KIND of state intervention is that whether people are buying it or not the quality has been lacking across the board for a long time. Time to insist on a reset to the golden era of the mid 50s.

Lets have some new doo wop, early rock, old country and swing songs… that would be a great thing.

Banning movies would not be a great thing. I love movies, they just recently have started sucking terribly the way music started to in the 90s.

“Capitalism is not the province of the king and if he tries to make it his he’ll fuck it up but culture to some degree has to be.”

Again, nobody’s saying the king should micro-manage capitalism the way regulators do.
There’s a discussion to be had, I’m sure, as to how much regulation’s required, but that’s nothing to do with the king (and obviously by ‘the king’ we also mean the office of the king).

The king is permission-giver, not regulator. If the king sees a company doing something that’s bad for the nation, the king reserves the right to CLOSE it. Not regulate it, not run it, not tell it how to better please him: CLOSE it.

Popular music is democracy. Folk music was always an expression of local solidarity and must be tolerated but linking folk music to mass marketing and global distribution transforms it into a ‘folk music for everyone’, which is inherently harmful because it promotes the low above the high.

The model for musical ‘regulation’ is basically the Medici family, Prinz Esterhazy, Frederick the Great, King George the First and the various aristocratic and yes bourgeois patrons of the 18th and 19th centuries. There is ALSO a role for independent capitalist publishing houses along the lines of those of Biedermeier Austria where Schubert scores were performed in houses of good repute.
There IS a role for der Neue Zeitschrift fur Musik and for the independent punditry of Hector Berlioz.

There is also, however, a role for Prinz Metternich’s censors, pretty much in the same form.

A global free market in shit music cannot be tolerated if we don’t want degeneracy to rapidly return.

We should however be cautious of the offhand racialist attitudes of the Third Reich. Consider Schoenberg’s “Verklärte Nacht”: the degenerate poem it was based on was written by Richard Dehmel, who was a German goy, while the highly expressive Wagnerian music was of course the product of an incredibly neurotic Jew.

There’s no sense in throwing the baby out with the bath-water. Nazi racialist determinism is just another form of ‘rule by algorithm’. It’s a matter for the king as to which works are banned, and of course a samizdat culture should also be liberally tolerated, so long as it’s clear that no-one in a position of cultural influence or especially power in society may promote samizdat culture.

Mendelssohn’s “Antigone” and “Athalie” should not be banned unless the king has good reason, and if we have a proper king, that reason will not be simply “because Jew”.

The boat needs a rudder, not a pre-programmed and automated code of operation.

That’s why I used that piece as a test case.
Nobody’s going to criticise a ban on “Moses and Aaron” because nobody cares. Even Adorno was only pretending, quite frankly, although he was spot on on jazz.

Music’s a special case because ultimately music’s an abstract art (I know people often pretend to disagree there). Combining it with concrete elements is actually not harmful at all.

I don’t pretend to have the answer here but for whatever reason music went to shit and went to shit way before SJWs started ruining other mediums.

I don’t know what to be done. I know bureaucrats cannot be creative themselves and I don’t want to stifle the creativity of genuine talent in music but its clear to me that genuine talent is either not being heard or being twisted to bad ends.

I cannot do the stormtard thing and blame the Jews, the Jews had a stronger grip on the music industry in the 1950s then the 1990s. And the last genuinely great artist we had (Billy Joel) is a Jew, unfortunately he refuses to make any new songs.

Popular music was democracy from day one. It works when strict amateurs play tunes handed down the generations. When non-musician musicians become professionals and have access to global distribution and marketing, it becomes a problem straight away.

Was it done by accident or on purpose? Don’t know, though CIA meddling in rock’n’roll is well known.

The whole thing will have to go. If the new folk songs have to begin as local amateur non-karaoke performances of “Come On Eileen”, well then so be it, but global distribution and marketing has to end for proletarian untrained music-making.

And nobody’s arguing that the King has no right to close down McDonald’s; the argument is that there is no good reason for His Highness to do so.

You are doing a motte and bailey. You argue for “The King should ban everything,” and when it is pointed out to you that it’s a horrible idea, you disingenuously accuse the interlocutor of denying the King’s right to ban any thing.

You play dumb and say, “Oh, I’m just arguing that the King has a right to ban things.” In fact, that is not your real argument; your actual argument is that the King *should* ban restaurants, pools, flights, etc.

There is a difference between “can” and “should.” You consistently argue for the latter (bailey), but whenever you’re confronted about your control freakery, you retreat to the motte of “The King can ban things and only a libertarian would deny that.”

You are a control freak, seeking to control everyone else, and you have decided that Fascism is a better strategy to achieve that than out-and-out Communism. And yet, scratch a nazi, find a commie: every single time.

Peppermint calls you a ghoul but I believe “control freak” really hits the nail on the head, so that’s what I’ll call you from now on.

“And nobody’s arguing that the King has no right to close down McDonald’s; the argument is that there is no good reason for His Highness to do so.”

There’s no dispute then.

You’re welcome to your private theories. I have my own. My view is that any king seeing McDonald’s and then looking at the patterns of behaviour of prole workers in cities, then looking at their finances, would probably close it down.

Not necessarily McDonald’s because they’re not as over-priced and exploitative as some. I normally think of Franky&Benny’s as the paradigm case, but who knows: maybe McDonald’s too. There’s certainly something unhealthy about it, and it’s not even the food.

In the current year under globohomo, McDonald’s is arguably a net good for society, based on the number of below-average people it employs: I’ve seen sixteen in one shop at one time before. That’s impressive.

In a healthy society, there’d be no advantage to doing that because our people would have plenty to do.

Anyway no argument left if that’s the case. I certainly never claimed *I* would be the king.

At the risk of sounding like a simplistic Tradtard, I’d say that music is, for the most part, a reflection of its zeitgest. In an age of nihilism and deracination, it is only natural that music should be tasteless and uninspired. Boomers enjoyed fine music themselves, but being the first generation to seriously embrace the poz, did not produce much of their own.

The “Return of Kings” will be accompanied by a broad cultural revival, and once the social atmosphere is cleansed off the poz, music will become great again.

(And if that doesn’t happen, well, there’s still a chance that AI will be able to produce some musical treasures)

the way he says words and means all power to the supreme soviet, the way he frankensteins together fragments of arguments without regard for their meaning, is creepy, the way he talks about how much he loves the White working class and wants policies that everyone knows transfer power away from working men, is ghoulish

What I said was a future stable society required solidarity BETWEEN CLASSES, which means redistribution and envy-politics are off limits because there’s no way any sane ruler will side with the poor against the rich.
Equally it’s not a tenable strategy to treat labour as a commodity in the sense of “you get paid what you’re worth and if you can’t afford to have a family tough shit try harder”.

Henry Ford pointed out the levels of jew domination and degeneracy in the music industry a hundred years ago. He was forced into retirement for it.

Maybe he was a puritan, maybe he wasn’t, doesn’t really matter.

The Internet would naturally route around record company executives, but it’s next to impossible to sell openly racist music, and tech industry executives do what they can to make sure that the right edge of music is Taylor Swift.

The JQ in music’s interesting. Wagner embraced a pretty ‘hard’ version of the ‘speech patterns create rhythmic patterns even in instrumental music’ theory but I’m not sure I can really see it if I’m honest. Mendelssohn’s idioms aren’t all that ‘alien’ sounding, and Moscheles sounds highly idiosyncratic but no more so than Bruckner, for fairly similar reasons.

It’s certainly fair to say that once Mendelssohn took up the chair at the Gewandhaus, he ensured a smooth transition to co-tribalists until someone put a stop to it, which was disastrous for the real musicians of Leipzig.

The Mahler question’s interesting: (((Bernstein))) essentially thought the entire 20th century was variations on Gustav Mahler, but to my mind the inflation of ‘forces’ was his main legacy, constituting as it did a kind of bureaucratic bloat. That never really went away, and we still live with the consequences: state-controlled orchestras and commissioning of composers. Very harmful.
Mahler’s fault for exploiting the world as it actually was? Debatable.

“Henry Ford pointed out the levels of jew domination and degeneracy in the music industry a hundred years ago. He was forced into retirement for it.”

But the music industry wasn’t so bad under Jewish domination its something else that ruined it. Jewish domination of the music industry probably peaked in the 1950s and early 1960s during the absolute golden era of American music. I wish the Jews who were in charge of the music industry then could be in charge of the music industry forever.

It wasn’t really the SJWs either… SJWs started really ruining movies around 9 or 10 years ago. Music started becoming really really bad almost 30 years ago.

Henry Ford pointed out the levels of jew domination and degeneracy in the music industry a hundred years ago. He was forced into retirement for it.

Lolwut. Henry Ford?
He invested a lot of efforts and money to make the Reich at least somewhat functional. They gave him the Grand Cross of the German Eagle (see the link below) for this. Terrible repercussions for this collaborations after the war: a playful slap on the wrist and let go with a “stern lecture” along the lines of:
— So, there was that one time when you have said something about the Jews doing unseemly things…
— I meant only the bad sort of Jews, of course! Oh, and also, I was shocked, shocked when it turned out that things were this bad in Germany. Of course.
— Ah, okay then. Thank you for your time.

If these comments are from 4chans Millennials as I suspect, I must give them props for some excellent comments. Much better stated than I could at this juncture of my burnout. This is very encouraging:

Roseanne show without Roseanne and Linux without Linus. What’s the problem?

—

They are upset they still have a penis and they can’t get rid of it since they have no marketable skills other than liberal media icons that pay nothing.

—

WHY ARE ALL THESE TRANSGINGERS TRYING TO SOLVE PROBLEMS THAT DONT EXIST AND MAKING PEOPLE WORSE OFF

CAUSE THEIR TRYING TO SOLVE THIER OWN PROBLEM THAT DOESN’T EXIST … TO HAVE DICK OR NOT TO HAVE DICK …

‘I don’t know. I can’t help it. Master’s got it. Sméagol promised to help the master.’

‘Yes, yes, to help… the master of the Precious. But if we was master, then we could help ourselfs, yes, and still keep promises.’

‘But Sméagol said he would be very very good. Nice hobbit! He took cruel rope off Sméagol’s leg. He speaks nicely to me.’

‘Very very good, eh, my precious? Let’s be good, good as fish, sweet one, but to ourselfs. Not hurt the nice hobbit, of course, no, no.’

‘But the Precious holds the promise,’ the voice of Sméagol objected.

—

You have no idea how DONE many people are becoming with your Leftist bullshît cloaking itself with false, petulant morality across the whole country and not just here. People are waking up in droves. You don’t give a shît about what you claim to care about, and people know it now.

You irredeemable filth are going to push it to civil war, and that’s fine because we then get to hunt you snowflakes to extinction, and your prior attitudes and actions will get you no mercy, no restraint and no hesitation.

Your future is a mass grave.

—

Stop talking an just do it.

SJWs are animal filth and don’t take threats seriously. Stop talking. Act. Scorch the earth. Make them pay and then move on and rebuild elsewhere with strict rules against millennial shit creatures.

—

Please, please, PLEASE do it! This shit is getting out of hand. Even if it means half the internet goes dark I want it.

—

Who the duck is this he shee?

He thinks he’s a girl.

Oh look another mentally ill deluded Marxist working as the poster boy for big capitalist hiding in the back ground while screeching about oppression caused primarily by these big corporations.

LEAST MY PEGINIS IS REAL!

—

Looks like a classical case of “screw you guys, I’m going home” by Linus. He let the SJW win a pyrrhus victory – by resigning he allowed it to escalate, and if starting tomorrow the development of linux freezes over until all of the code is rewritten, probably by corporation who will also own the rights, the backlash could be the beginning of the end for SJW supporters. Currently, nobody but a bunch of tech geeks knows about this, but the end (or at least the freeze) of linux could be a globally catastrophic event that will affect the world’s economy in ways nobody can anticipate. It would be both interesting and dreadful to see Google, Ben Shapiro and Warren Buffet standing on the same front. It could also be the end of the long lasting support of SJW inside silicone valley.

I would also not be surprised one bit if eventually it will turn out that someone like Apple or Microsoft are actually behind this entire affair since they are the real winners here.